Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T06:29:26.292Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tracing Ingombe Ilede's trade connections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 August 2017

David Killick
David Killick*
Affiliation:
School of Anthropology, University of Arizona, P.O. Box 210030, Tucson, AZ 85721-0030, USA (Email: killick@email.arizona.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

McIntosh and Fagan (above) write that “For 45 years, Ingombe Ilede has been viewed as a key nexus linking the Copperbelt and Great Zimbabwe”. Some regional specialists have not believed this since the publication of Swan's (2007) important review of the sizes and shapes of prehistoric copper ingots found in modern Zimbabwe. Swan noted that both of the ingot moulds found at Great Zimbabwe (which have a clear stylistic connection to the Copperbelt) are of the earlier HIH style (ninth to fourteenth centuries AD; de Maret 1995; Nikis & Livingstone Smith in press). But neither the later HXR-style copper ingots (fourteenth to seventeenth centuries)—some of which were excavated at Ingombe Ilede—nor the moulds to make them have been found on a Zimbabwe tradition site. The distribution of HXR ingots within the modern nation of Zimbabwe is almost exclusively in the north, within the former territory of the Mutapa state (Swan 2007: fig. 2). The clear implication is that the HXR ingot style—and thus the elite burials at Ingombe Ilede—post-date the breakup of the state ruled from Great Zimbabwe, which gave birth to the Mutapa (northern) and Torwa (southern) states. The new radiocarbon dates by McIntosh and Fagan provide welcome confirmation of this inference.

Type
Debate
Information
Antiquity , Volume 91 , Issue 358 , August 2017 , pp. 1087 - 1088
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Chirikure, S., Heimann, R. & Killick, D.J.. 2010. The technology of tin smelting in the Rooiberg Valley, Limpopo Province, South Africa, ca. 1650–1850 CE. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 1656–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2010.01.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Maret, P. 1995. Croisette histories, in de Heusch, L. (ed.) Objects: signs of Africa: 133–45. Tervuren: Musée Royale de l'Afrique Centrale.Google Scholar
Herbert, E. 1984. Red gold of Africa: copper in precolonial history and culture. Madison (WI): University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Hauptmann, A., Schneider, G. & Bartels, C.. 2016. The shipwreck of Bom Jesus, AD 1533: Fugger copper in Nambia. Journal of African Archaeology 14: 181–207. https://doi.org/10.3213/2191-5784-10288 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molofsky, L.J., Killick, D.J., Ducea, M.N., Macovei, M., Chesley, J.T., Ruiz, J., Thibodeau, A.M. & Popescu, G.C.. 2014. A novel approach to lead isotope provenance studies of tin and bronze: applications to South African, Botswanan and Romanian artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 50: 440–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.08.006 Google Scholar
Newitt, M. 2005. A history of Portuguese overseas expansion, 1400–1668. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203324042 Google Scholar
Nikis, N. & Livingstone Smith, A.. In press. Copper, trade, and polities: exchange networks in southern Central Africa in the 2nd millennium AD. Journal of Southern African Studies.Google Scholar
Prendergast, M.D. 1979. Cornucopia: phase 1 Zimbabwe stone buildings associated with an Iron Age tin mine? Rhodesian Prehistory 17: 11–16.Google Scholar
Stephens, J. 2016. Assessing the suitability of southern Africa for archaeological provenance studies with lead isotopes. Unpublished MA dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Swan, L.M. 2007. Economic and ideological roles of copper ingots in prehistoric Zimbabwe. Antiquity 81: 999–1012. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00096071 CrossRefGoogle Scholar